3.1 .The Respondents Socio-Economic Characteristics
This study emphasized the socio-economic features of cowpea farmers in southern Ethiopia expending the variables of gender, marital status, age, household size, education status and farming experience (Table 2). During the household survey, a total of 150 individual farmers were interviewed. Of the 150 farmers interviewed, 14% were women and 86 % were men, which implies that cowpeas are grown by both men and women farmers. There was no significant difference (p >0.05; χ2 = 1.92) in gender representation among the four districts. Women participation in cowpea production was relatively higher in Humbo district (20%) compared to Gofa (10%). Forty one percent of the participants were under the age of 30, 51 % were between 31 and 60 years old with an average age of 47.1 years , representing that the farmers are still in their economically active age group capable of various agricultural activities. Only 8% of farmers were above the productive age of 60 years.
Across districts about 60.9 % of the sampled farmers had one form of formal education or the other while 39.3 % had no formal education. Due to the low level of education in some survey areas, researchers need to communicate with the farmers via local language in transmitting the latest technical knowledge promotion. This stresses that farmers who have attained some level of formal education are likely to raise their productivity through innovative use of technologies. Most of the farmers (82.7 %) have been cultivating cowpea for 6 years and above while the average years of experience of the farmers in cowpea production was 19.65 years. This supposes that farmers in SNNPRS have been cultivating cowpea many years ago except kindo koyisha. Also, about 93 percent of the respondents in the study area were married couples, and this is an indication of their chances of getting family labour for use on their cowpea farms. There were significant differences (P<0.05; χ2 = 26.1) in family size among districts (Table 2). In Humbo, 61% of the respondents had a family size of 6 to 9 individuals, whereas in Kindo koyisha, 50% of respondents had a family size of ≥10 individuals with the average family size across districts being 6.97. The implication is that farmers with large family size will however; also need to increase their productivity to meet up with the consumption need of the family. Among the farmers interviewed, on average 96.7 % of the farmers planned to expand cowpea production, while only 3.3 % reported that they do not have an expansion plan.
Almost all respondents expressed their willingness to expand cowpea production if crop yield increase through the selection, introduction and promotion of improved varieties as well as agronomic practices. The results suggest that cowpea production is still on a small scale and needs many improvement in terms of yield and constraints to its production.
Table 2. Demographic and socio-economic information about the farmers in the study areas.
|
|
Gofa
|
K/koyisha
|
Humbo
|
Konso
|
|
|
|
variable
|
category
|
Freq
|
%
|
freq
|
%
|
freq
|
%
|
freq
|
%
|
% mean
|
df
|
χ2
|
Gender
|
Male
|
36
|
90
|
18
|
90
|
33
|
80
|
41
|
84
|
86
|
3
|
1.92
|
Female
|
4
|
10
|
2
|
10
|
8
|
20
|
8
|
16
|
14
|
|
|
Marital status
|
Single
|
1
|
2.5
|
4
|
20
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
6
|
6
|
27.3**
|
Married
|
39
|
97.5
|
15
|
75
|
41
|
100
|
49
|
100
|
93
|
|
|
|
Divorced
|
0
|
0
|
1
|
5
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
1
|
|
|
Age (year)
|
21–30
|
8
|
19
|
16
|
80
|
11
|
27
|
18
|
37
|
41
|
6
|
24.7*
|
31–60
|
27
|
68
|
3
|
15
|
28
|
68
|
26
|
53
|
51
|
|
|
>60
|
5
|
13
|
1
|
5
|
2
|
5
|
5
|
10
|
8
|
|
|
Mean age
|
43
|
|
60
|
|
48
|
|
44
|
|
47.1
|
|
|
Family size
|
≤5
|
10
|
25
|
4
|
20
|
8
|
20
|
14
|
29
|
23
|
6
|
26.1*
|
6–9
|
21
|
53
|
6
|
30
|
25
|
61
|
27
|
55
|
50
|
|
|
≥10
|
9
|
23
|
10
|
50
|
8
|
20
|
8
|
16
|
27
|
|
|
Mean
|
7
|
|
9
|
|
7
|
|
6.1
|
|
6.97
|
|
|
Education status
|
illiterate
|
11
|
27.5
|
3
|
7.5
|
14
|
35
|
31
|
63.3
|
39.3
|
9
|
31.9**
|
1–4
|
6
|
15
|
5
|
12.5
|
10
|
25
|
12
|
24.5
|
22.1
|
|
|
5–8
|
16
|
40
|
5
|
12.5
|
10
|
25
|
4
|
8.2
|
23.3
|
|
|
9-10
|
7
|
17.5
|
7
|
17.5
|
7
|
17.5
|
2
|
4.1
|
15.3
|
|
|
Farming experience
|
≤5
|
2
|
5
|
20
|
100
|
2
|
5
|
2
|
4
|
17.3
|
6
|
140.8**
|
6--20
|
13
|
32
|
0
|
0
|
34
|
83
|
19
|
39
|
44.0
|
|
|
>20
|
25
|
63
|
0
|
0
|
5
|
12
|
28
|
57
|
38.7
|
|
|
|
Mean
|
22.3
|
|
2.3
|
|
24
|
|
20.9
|
|
19.65
|
|
|
Willing to expand cowpea
|
Yes
|
39
|
97.5
|
19
|
95
|
40
|
97.6
|
47
|
95.9
|
96.7
|
3
|
0.44
|
No
|
1
|
2.5
|
1
|
5
|
1
|
2.4
|
2
|
4.1
|
3.3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Source: field survey, 2016 & 2017,*Probability values based on chi-square test,1timad=0.25ha
3.2. Farming system and Crop production
The main livelihoods of the farmers in all study districts were both crop and livestock production as major sources of food, feed, and income. The distribution of respondents based on the size of their farm holding and oher crops grown is shown in Table 3. About 59 % of respondents owned a farm of ≤2 ha, whereas 23 % owned a farm of 2.1 to 3 ha and 18 % owned a farm of >3 ha. Majority (82 %) of the farm family in the study area had small farm holdings of 3 ha or less. The size of farm determines the extent to which other resources (capital, labour etc) are used for ideal yield. The analysis of land use reveals that overall of 393.4 hectare were cultivated by total respondents and individual plot sizes ranged from 0.125 to 5 ha with a mean of 2.61 ha. This indicates that majority of the farmers in the study area were small holders. This situation where many farmers cultivated only small plots of land will not promote agricultural production beyond subsistence level. Furthermore, the result exhibited that 60 – 90 % farmers cultivated up to 0.25 ha or less of cowpea, 10 – 33 % utilized between 0.26-0.5 ha and only 0 – 14.6 % were engaged in 0.5 ha and above. This means that most farmers in this part of the country cultivate cowpea majorly within 0.1-0.25 ha of land with average farm size of 0.24 ha. Estimated yield across ditricts ranged from 626 kg ha−1 for Gofa to 423 kg ha−1 for Konso district with an average yield of 503.5 kg ha-1(Table 3). There was a significant difference (p < 0.0001; χ2= 29.8) in cowpea yield among the four districts. This investigation as estimates given by the farmers were based on memory recall and use of local measures. In all districts, cowpea was the important food and cash crop in the area after mung bean and common bean. During the FGDs, farmers explained that they used a low amount of inorganic fertilizers for cereal crops grown after cowpea, due to its ability to fix valuable nitrogen into the soil.
Table 3. Farm size and other crops grown in survey areas, 2016/2017.
|
|
Gofa
|
K/koyisha
|
Humbo
|
Konso
|
|
|
|
variable
|
category
|
Freq
|
%
|
freq
|
%
|
freq
|
%
|
freq
|
%
|
% mean
|
df
|
χ2
|
Farmland size(ha)
|
≤2
|
30
|
75
|
9
|
45
|
13
|
32
|
40
|
82
|
59
|
6
|
40.7**
|
2.1–3.0
|
2
|
5
|
7
|
35
|
20
|
49
|
2
|
4
|
23
|
|
|
>3
|
8
|
20
|
4
|
20
|
8
|
20
|
7
|
14
|
18
|
|
|
Mean
|
1.65
|
|
5
|
|
3.6
|
|
1.6
|
|
2.61
|
|
|
Cowpea farm size (ha)
|
≤0.25
|
30
|
75
|
18
|
90
|
25
|
60.0
|
30
|
61
|
68
|
6
|
11.7
|
0.26-0.5
|
9
|
22.5
|
2
|
10
|
10
|
24.4
|
16
|
33
|
25
|
|
|
>0.5
|
1
|
2.5
|
0
|
0
|
6
|
14.6
|
3
|
6
|
7
|
|
|
Mean
|
0.20
|
|
0.13
|
|
0.26
|
|
0.31
|
|
0.24
|
|
|
cowpea yield (kg/ha)
|
≤200
|
13
|
32.5
|
14
|
70
|
34
|
82.9
|
38
|
77.6
|
66.0
|
6
|
29.8**
|
201-500
|
23
|
57.5
|
4
|
20
|
6
|
14.6
|
10
|
20.4
|
28.7
|
|
|
>500
|
4
|
10
|
2
|
10
|
1
|
2.5
|
1
|
2.1
|
5.3
|
|
|
Mean
|
626
|
|
452
|
|
505
|
|
423
|
|
503.5
|
|
|
Other crops grown
|
Maize
|
12
|
30
|
6
|
30
|
14
|
35
|
11
|
22.5
|
29
|
30
|
47.9*
|
Sorghum
|
1
|
3
|
1
|
4
|
1
|
2
|
15
|
30
|
10
|
|
|
common bean
|
4
|
10
|
2
|
10
|
4
|
10
|
6
|
12.5
|
11
|
|
|
Mung bean
|
2
|
5
|
1
|
5
|
1
|
2
|
2
|
5
|
4
|
|
|
Cowpea
|
2
|
4
|
1
|
2
|
2
|
4
|
5
|
10
|
5
|
|
|
Pigeon pea
|
2
|
5
|
1
|
5
|
4
|
10
|
2
|
5
|
6
|
|
|
Tef
|
4
|
11
|
3
|
14
|
6
|
15
|
7
|
15
|
14
|
|
|
Cassava
|
5
|
13
|
2
|
9
|
4
|
10
|
0
|
0
|
8
|
|
|
Sweet potato
|
3
|
7
|
2
|
11
|
2
|
6
|
0
|
0
|
6
|
|
|
Taro
|
2
|
5
|
2
|
10
|
2
|
6
|
0
|
0
|
5
|
|
|
Groundnut
|
3
|
7
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
2
|
|
|
Source: Field survey, 2016 and 2017. †No. of respondents of konso, kindokoyisa, Humbo and gofa = 49, 20, 41 and 40, respectively Freq=Frequency, % =percent
Apart from cowpeas, 29 % of the interviewed farmers grew maize (Zea mays L.), Tef [Eragrostis Tef (Zucc.) Trotter] 14%, common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) 11 %, sorghum (Sorghum bicolor)10%,cassava (Manihot esculenta Crantz) 8 % , pigeonpea ([Cajanus cajan (L.) and sweet potato[Ipomoea batatas (L.) each 6%, Taro (Colocasia esculenta) 5%,mung bean(Wigna radiata L. Wilezek) 4% and groundnuts(Arachis hypogaea) 2%. Maize,tef,common bean and sorghum are important crops for the survey areas.
Cowpea Production Systems: Cowpea was mostly grown in an intercropping system (Fig. 2 and 3). The findings of the study showed that farmers grow cowpea in together with other crops. Farmers reported that they intercrop their cowpea with sorghum, maize and cassava. Intercropping is a traditional practice that is well integral among the study area’s farmers. Across study areas, cowpea is often planted with a number of crops (Fig.2). Thus,the important cowpea cropping system practised in the study areas as intercropping (92.7%) and occasional monocropping/sole cropping (7.3%).
Among the interviewed farmers, 61.2% intercrop cowpea with sorghum, 34.7 % intercrop cowpea with maize, 4.1 % of the farmers grow cowpea sole in Konso. In the Humbo district, 78 % grow cowpea with maize, 17.1 % of the farmers grow cowpea sole and 4.9 % practiced cowpea/sorghum. Likewise in Gofa, 2.5% cultivate cowpea sole, 92.5% intercrop cowpea with maize and 5 % intercrop cowpea with cassava.
In kindo koyisha,85% intercrop cowpea with maize, 5% cultivate cowpea sole and 10 % practiced cowpea/sorghum intercropping system (Fig.3a). Across survey districts of the region, 68.7 % intercrop cowpea with maize, 22.7 % intercrop cowpea with sorghum, 1.3 % intercrop cowpea with cassava, 7.3 % practiced sole cowpea production(Fig 3b). The results imply that most farmers in survey areas intercropped cowpea with maize and sorghum and few people practice sole cowpea production.The practice of intercropping cowpea with cereals is in certainty with those practices in other parts of Africa. This also points to the need to develop varieties suitable for intercropping systems,sole cropping, as well as crop and livestock integration.
3.3. Cowpea varieties, types and sources of seed cultivated by farmers
Cultivation of local cowpea varieties (92.7%) occupied the cowpea cropping system in the four districts (Table 4).Most of farmers were not aware of improved cowpea varieties in the survey districts. Across districts, 92.7% predominantly grow local landraces, whilst only 2.4 % cultivate improved varieties, commonly in addition to the local landraces. Cowpea seeds were commonly sourced from local markets (54.7 %) while 36 % sourced their seed mainly from Farm saved seed in each of the survey areas (Table 4). Chi-square analysis found significant differences among the four districts for cowpea seed sources (p < 0.001; χ2= 53.4). Other sources are seeds from the research (2.7%); provided by the Agricultural office (3.3%); provided by NGOs (0.7 %); obtained from a neigbour (2.7%). Nearly 40% of farmers reported the usage of recycled seeds for more than four years, probably as due to poor extension support,which resulted in absence of technical advice on improved cowpea packages. In study areas, farmers grew two to three cowpea cultivars: reddish brown, gray and white seed colour (Table 5). Farmers in Konso cultivated three local cultivars of cowpea (Tambara, Saritota and Bekada) with Tambara being the dominantly cultivated variety in the area. Majority of the farmers (51%) in konso grew Tambra varieties, followed by Saritota (26.5 %) varieties (Table 4). Most of farmers (90%) in Gofa, 73.2% in Humbo and 60 % in Kindo koyisha grew Bota wohe landraces. A few farmers grew Zo’o wohe, Bulla and Bekada cultivars. In the survey areas, the local name for cowpea varies. Cowpea is generally called “Ohoda” in Konso, ‘Wohe’ in Gofa district, while known as ‘Eka wohe’ in the wolayta zone, respectively (Table 4). Presently cultivated improved cowpea varieties in the survey districts are very limited and 92.7 % of the respondents in all the four survey districts used local cowpea varieties. Though, these varieties are cultivated by farmers'; they are still low have yields, late maturing, susceptible disease and insect pest (aphid) and susceptible to drought. From these results; it is also obvious that cowpea growers in the survey areas required new modern cowpea varieties with full improved packages and faced a challenge in selecting cowpea cultivars. Thus, there is a fundamental need for research intervention to introduce/generate cowpea varieties that are highly yielding, early maturing, diseases and insect pests resistant to meet farmers’ expectations. The cowpea varieties grown in study areas are presented in Table 5.
Table 4: cultivars grown,types of cowpea seeds cultivated and sources
Practices
|
variables
|
Gofa
|
KK
|
Humbo
|
Konso
|
overall
|
DF
|
X2
|
Varieties
|
Local
|
35(87.5)
|
20(100)
|
38(92.7)
|
46(93.9)
|
139(92.7)
|
6
|
5.25ns
|
|
Improved
|
1(2.5)
|
0
|
1(2.4)
|
2(4.1)
|
4(2.4)
|
|
|
|
both
|
4(10)
|
0
|
2(4.9)
|
1(2.0)
|
7(4.9)
|
|
|
Sources of seed
|
Research
|
4(10)
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
4(2.7)
|
15
|
53.4**
|
Market
|
30(75)
|
7(35)
|
15(36.6)
|
30(61.2)
|
82(54.7)
|
|
|
Neighbor
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
4(8.2)
|
4(2.7)
|
|
|
NGOs
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
1(2)
|
1(0.7)
|
|
|
BoA
|
3(7.5)
|
0
|
2(4.9)
|
0
|
5(3.3)
|
|
|
Local saved seed
|
3(7.5)
|
13(65)
|
24(58.5)
|
14(28.6)
|
54(36)
|
|
|
Land races
|
Bota wohe
|
36(90
|
12(60)
|
30(73.2)
|
0
|
78(52)
|
15
|
173.9*
|
|
Bulla wohe
|
0
|
0
|
5(12.2)
|
0
|
5(3.3)
|
|
|
|
Zo’oo wohe
|
4(10)
|
8(40)
|
6(14.6)
|
0
|
18(12)
|
|
|
|
Tambara
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
25(51)
|
25(16.7)
|
|
|
|
Saritota
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
13(26.5)
|
13(8.7)
|
|
|
|
Bekada
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
11(24.5)
|
11(7.3)
|
|
|
Local name
|
cowpea
|
“Wohe”
|
“Eka wohe”
|
“Ohoda”
|
|
|
|
Source: BoA=Beru of agriculture, Field survey, 2016 and 2017, Values in parentheses are percentages. Key: DF=degrees of freedom, X2=chi-squares=non-significance; * and ** denote significance at 5% and 1%, respectively.
3.4 . Cowpea production management practices
Farmers in the four survey areas presented the cropping calendar. The survey areas were experienced by bimodal rainfall systems. Two production seasons (belg,and meher) were characterised in the study areas. In all districts, farmers grew cowpeas twice in a year (Table 5). In study areas ,the planting times for cowpea were from end of Febrary to March for Belg and from end of June to July for Meher. The majority of the farmers (47%) in konso grew in the Belg season ,while 70% of the farmers grew in the Meher season in the Kindo koyisha district. Across the districts, nearly half (43.3%) of the farmers cultivate cowpea twice in a year, by planting in the Meher and Belg seasons, while 56.7% cultivate once in a year either in Belg or Meher.Some times belg season production constrains with aphid infestation thus belg season production should be supplemented with proper pest control measure or use of aphid resistant variety.
The interviewed farmers indicated several reasons they are growing cowpea for their use as food ,feed and as a cash crop. Farmers in the four district showed that they grew cowpea for household consumption (38 %), market and feed (23.3),market and food (21.3%), market (10 %) ,feed (4%) and vegetable (3.3) (Table 3).There were significant differences between districts (P < 0.001) in the purposes of growing cowpeas. In Humbo and kindo koyisha, cowpeas were grown mainly for market and livestock feed (50%,and 48.8%); while in Gofa and Konso they were grown for the household consumption and market (Table 5). The grains and leaves were the most important products harvested from cowpea and have an important role throughout the districts. Conversely, there were differences on important products harvested from cowpea between districts: grain was more important in all districts. Leaves and green pods were more important in konso than others. On the other hand, straw (biomass yield) was equally important in Kindo koyisha (Table 5). Farmers also reported that cowpeas is grown for its versatile use because the leaves and seeds, during different times of the cultivating period, was so vital that there is a potential in developing multi-purpose varieties with good productivity, gives high yield in terms of both above ground biomass and seeds.Therefore, it is important to breed high-yielding varieties that can be cultivated during the Belg and Meher seasons, so that poor farmers would benefit the most.
Of the the interviewed farmers, 81.3 % of the interviewed farmers practiced broad cast method of planting, 14.7 % said they used row method of planting while 4 % reported that they used both methods of planting. None of the interviewed farmers use herbicides to control weed on cowpea and more than 75 % of farmers uses manual weed control on cowpea. Farmers identified poor soil fertility as cowpea production constraints. Fertilizer use is one of the widely accepted practices for increasing agricultural productivity and farm cost-effectiveness in production of crop. In contrast, only very few farmers (4%) in the study areas used fertilizers on their cowpea farms. It is known that cowpea does not need much fertilizer as it fixes nitrogen unless the soil is markedly exhausted of nutrients. Farmers indicated that cowpea production is limited by various field pests and diseases (Tables 5) which commonly lead to crop damages. Traditional practices and chemical methods were among the methods used by few farmers against diseases and insect pests (Table 5). Across the districts, more than sixty percent (62.6 %) of the respondents do nothing to control insects pests and diseases (Table 5). Research intervention aimed at generating diseases and insect pests resistant varieties adaptable to poor soil fertility with their full packages has therefore been a priority for farmers in the survey areas.
Table 5. Management practices in cowpea cropping systems at survey districts
Practices
|
variables
|
Gofa
|
KK
|
Humbo
|
Konso
|
overall
|
DF
|
X2
|
Planting season
|
Belg
|
5(12.5)
|
2(10)
|
6(14.6)
|
23(47)
|
36(24)
|
6
|
33.5*
|
Meher
|
12(30)
|
14(70)
|
14(34.1)
|
9(18)
|
49(32.7)
|
|
|
Both
|
23(57.5)
|
4(20)
|
21(51.2)
|
17(35)
|
65(43.3)
|
|
|
Method of weeding
|
Manual
|
32(80)
|
16(80)
|
30(73)
|
38(78)
|
116(77)
|
9
|
2.18
|
Hoeing
|
4(10)
|
2(10)
|
8(20)
|
7(14)
|
21(14)
|
|
|
Both
|
2(5)
|
1(5)
|
1(2)
|
2(4)
|
6(4)
|
|
|
Not weeded
|
2(5)
|
1(5)
|
2(3)
|
2(4)
|
7(5)
|
|
|
Purpose of growing cowpea
|
Consumption
|
11(27.5)
|
4(20)
|
12(29.3)
|
30(61.2)
|
57(38)
|
15
|
68.5**
|
Market
|
4(10)
|
2(10)
|
5(12.2)
|
4(8.2)
|
15(10)
|
|
|
Feed
|
1(2.5)
|
1(5)
|
2(4.9)
|
2(4.1)
|
6(4)
|
|
|
Vegetable
|
1(2.5)
|
0
|
0
|
4(8.1)
|
5(3.3)
|
|
|
Market & consumption
|
20(50)
|
3(15)
|
2(4.9)
|
7(14.3)
|
32(21.3)
|
|
|
Market & feed
|
3(7.5)
|
10(50)
|
20(48.8)
|
2(4.1)
|
35(23.3)
|
|
|
Most important product of cowpea
|
Grain
|
20(50)
|
9(45)
|
24(58.5)
|
28(57.1)
|
81(54.)
|
9
|
31.7**
|
Leaves
|
2(5)
|
0(0)
|
0(0)
|
12(24.5)
|
16(10.7)
|
|
|
Green pods
|
1(2.5)
|
1(5)
|
2(4.8)
|
4(8.2)
|
6(4)
|
|
|
Stover
|
17(42.5)
|
10(50)
|
15(36.6)
|
5(10.2)
|
47(31.3)
|
|
|
Planting methods
|
Broad cast
|
34(85)
|
16(80)
|
25(60)
|
47(94.9)
|
122(81.3)
|
6
|
20.1*
|
Row
|
5(12.5)
|
4(20)
|
12(30)
|
1(2.6)
|
22(14.7)
|
|
|
Both
|
1(2.5)
|
0
|
4(10)
|
1(2.6)
|
6(4)
|
|
|
Fertilizer use
|
Yes
|
2(5)
|
0
|
2(4.9)
|
2(4.1)
|
6(4)
|
3
|
1.02ns
|
|
No
|
38(95)
|
20(100)
|
39(95.1)
|
47(95.9)
|
144(96)
|
|
|
Insect pests & diseases control
|
Traditional
|
6(15)
|
1(5)
|
7(17.1)
|
20(40.8)
|
34(22.7)
|
6
|
27.5**
|
chemicals
|
2(5)
|
1(5)
|
8(19.5)
|
11(22.5)
|
22(14.7)
|
|
|
No action
|
32(80)
|
18(90)
|
26(63.4)
|
18(36.7)
|
94(62.6)
|
|
|
Source: Field Survey, 2016 and 2017, Values in parentheses are percentages. Key: DF=degrees of freedom, X2=chi-square,ns=non-significance; * and ** denote significance at 5% and 1%, respectively.
3.5. Criteria in choosing varities of cowpea
In the survey districts, evaluation of farmers preffered traits in cowpea ranking was performed (Table 6). Though the criteria for variety selection were relatively similar in all four study sites, there were significant variations in the traits of the chosen varieties. These differences varied from site to site. Farmers confirmed high yield potential, early maturity, resistance to disease and insect pests,drought resistance ,short cook ability,seed color,seed size ,leaf shedding, large seed size and good taste as the vital preference criteria when selecting cowpea varieties (Table 6). The most significant favored traits by farmer across study areas were high yield , insect pest and diseases resistance, drought tolerance, earliness,short cookability and seed colour. Moreover, farmers did not appear to experience problems with shattering except in konso. In all areas studied, high grain , those that allowed the crop to escape from drought (e.g., earliness), or produce yield, even though exposed by drought or pests and (i.e., resistant varieties). Early maturity assured the early provision of food for households , hence preventing hunger. On the contrary in all districts, most of the reported landraces are low yielding ,late maturing, small seed size and are susceptible to diseases and insect pests and drought, which requires research intervention to introduce or generate problem solving cowpea technology.
Farmers were asked to rank cowpea traits of cowpea, which they preferred to be incorporated into cowpea varieties that would improve easy and high adoption by them (Table 6). In Gofa and kindo koyisha, high yield and tolerance to diseases and insect pests came first followed by early maturity. In Konso and Humbo, early maturity , high yield and diseases and insect pests were tied in rank as their main favored traits. When the scores for the criteria was computed across all the communities nested within their respective districts, it was observed that early maturity, high yield , resistance to insect pests and diseases, drought tolerance, short cooking time, seed colour, seed size, good taste , high market value, leaf shedding , suitability to intercropping (upright growth habit) and above ground biomass yield were tied in rank as the preferred traits followed by shattering resistance (Table 6).
Table 6.The preference traits of cowpea varieties, as ranked by farmers in four surevy districts
Preference trait
|
District
|
overall
|
Gofa
|
k/k
|
Humbo
|
Konso
|
score
|
rank
|
High yield
|
13(1)
|
12 (1)
|
11 ( 2)
|
13 (2)
|
12.25
|
1
|
Above ground biomass yield
|
2(11)
|
4 (10)
|
4 (8)
|
3 (11)
|
3.25
|
13
|
Seed size
|
10(4)
|
8 (6)
|
6 (7)
|
6 (8)
|
7.5
|
7
|
Seed colour
|
6(8)
|
9 (5)
|
6 (7)
|
11 (3)
|
8
|
5
|
Disease and insect pests
|
13(1)
|
12 ( 1)
|
9 ( 3)
|
10(5)
|
11
|
3
|
Suitability for inter cropping
|
5(9)
|
5 (9)
|
6 (7)
|
4(10)
|
5
|
12
|
Good taste
|
4(10)
|
10 (4)
|
6 (7)
|
9 (6)
|
7.25
|
8
|
Short cook ability
|
9 (5)
|
6 (8)
|
9(3)
|
8 (7)
|
8
|
5
|
Drought tolernace
|
11(3)
|
11(3)
|
10(2)
|
11(3)
|
10.75
|
4
|
Resistant to weevils
|
7(7)
|
7 (7)
|
8 (5)
|
6(8)
|
7
|
9
|
Leaf shedding
|
8(6)
|
7 (7)
|
7 (6)
|
5 (9)
|
6.25
|
11
|
Shattering resistance
|
0 0
|
0 0
|
0 0
|
6 (8)
|
1.5
|
14
|
Earliness
|
12(2)
|
11 ( 3)
|
12(1)
|
14 (1)
|
12.25
|
1
|
marketability
|
8(6)
|
7 (7)
|
7 (6)
|
5 (8)
|
6.75
|
10
|
Ranking: 14 represented the top score and 1 the least preferred trait.whereas 1= less important trait and 14=highly important trait,0=problem not listed by farmers
3.6. Constraints to cowpea production
Cowpea production constraints varied from household to household, depending on household characteristics and socio-economic conditions. In this study, numerous production constraints of cowpea were identified (Table 7). Between the limitations identified, insect pests and diseases at 87.3 % , drought (86.7 %) , lack of improved varieties (80 %); poor credit service (73.3 %); poor agronomic practices (plant spacing, weeding ,soil management)(71.3%), poor extension service (73.3%) , land shortage(62.7%), low soil fertility (66%),storage pest(57.3%), wild goat (14.7 %) , shattering (10.7 %) and the combination of ape and porcupine (11.3%), were important. There was a significant difference (P < 0.001; χ2 = 162.7) in production constraints between the four districts (Table 7). Some of the constraints mentioned cannot be solved from the cowpea improvement programs. However, resistances to drought, pests, diseases, aphid,low soil fertility, shattering,weevils, low palatability,long cookability and seed size (Table 7) are quite possible in the research on the development cowpea varieties.
Table 7: Major constraints and coping mechanisms of cowpea production across the 4 districts
Constraints
|
Konso
|
Humbo
|
Gofa
|
K/koyisha
|
Overall
|
OR
|
DF
|
X2
|
Lack of improved seeds
|
36(73.5)
|
30(73.2)
|
36(90)
|
18(90)
|
120(80)
|
3
|
33
|
162.7**
|
Drought
|
44(89.8)
|
32(78)
|
38(95)
|
16(80)
|
130(86.7)
|
2
|
|
Diseases & insect pests
|
45(91.8)
|
32(78)
|
38(95)
|
16(80)
|
131(87.3)
|
1
|
|
Weak credit service
|
35(71.4)
|
26(63.4)
|
35(87.5)
|
14(70)
|
110(73.3)
|
4
|
|
Poor agronomic conditions
|
30(61.2)
|
29(70.7)
|
33(82.5)
|
15(75)
|
107(71.3)
|
6
|
|
Poor extension service
|
34(69.4)
|
28(68.3)
|
34(85)
|
13(65)
|
109(72.7)
|
5
|
|
Storage pest
|
32(65.3)
|
24(58.5)
|
30(75)
|
0(0)
|
86(57.3)
|
9
|
|
Low soil fertility
|
31(63.3)
|
27(65.9)
|
29(72.5)
|
12(60)
|
99(66)
|
7
|
|
Shattering
|
16(32.7)
|
0(0)
|
0(0)
|
0(0)
|
16(10.7)
|
12
|
|
Land shortage
|
29(59.2)
|
22(53.7)
|
32(80)
|
10(50)
|
93(62)
|
8
|
|
Ape & porcupine
|
0(0)
|
6(14.6)
|
0(0)
|
11(55)
|
17(11.3)
|
11
|
|
Wild goat
|
0(0)
|
23(56.1)
|
0(0)
|
0(0)
|
23(15.3)
|
10
|
|
Constraints Strategy Coping strategies for drought stress and bruchids
|
Drought stress
|
Soil mulching
|
2(5)
|
1(2.4)
|
1(5)
|
6(12.24)
|
16(10.7)
|
2
|
12
|
10.9
|
Use of ridges
|
0(0)
|
1(2.4)
|
1(5)
|
6(12.24)
|
9(6)
|
3
|
|
|
AP dates
|
4(10)
|
3(7.4)
|
0(0)
|
4(8.2)
|
5(3.3)
|
4
|
|
|
No option
|
34(85)
|
36(87.8)
|
17(85)
|
33(67.3)
|
120(80)
|
1
|
|
|
Bruchids
|
Ash
|
1(2.5)
|
0
|
0
|
3(6.12)
|
4(2.7)
|
4
|
9
|
18.3*
|
Sand
|
2(5)
|
1(2.4)
|
1(5)
|
2(4.08)
|
6(4)
|
3
|
|
|
Hot pepper
|
1(2.5)
|
1(2.4)
|
0
|
9(18.4)
|
11(7.3)
|
2
|
|
|
No option
|
36(90)
|
39(95.2)
|
19(95)
|
35(71.4)
|
129(86)
|
1
|
|
|
Calculated chi-square value is 162.7 and DF= (12-1) x (4-1) = 33,12,9 AP=adjusting planting dates, The numbers in parenthesis indicates the percentage of respondents using that respective strategy;*=significance at 5% and ns= non-significance,OR=Overall rank
Farmers listed the most important constraints in their areas and ranked them as per priority (Table 7). Insect pests (aphid) and diseases were by far, the most important constraint limiting cowpea production in the survey districts (Table 7). Most those interviewed in Konso indicated that Bekada and Saritota were the most susceptible variety to aphids, while in Gofa and Humbo, farmers did not perceive any difference between the grown varieties (Bota, Bulla,and Zoo’o wohe,all susceptible to aphids)(Table 4). Drought ranked second, followed by the lack of improved seeds. It has been observed that cowpea yield is reduced during the years of short and unreliable rainfall despite cowpea being a drought tolerant crop. Other constraints mentioned were weak credit service, poor agronomic practices, poor extension service, land shortage storage pest, wild goat, shattering, combination of ape and porcupine.Farmers in Kindo koyisha perceived the ape and porcupine as the seventh most important constraint followed by land shoratge while in Humbo, wild goat was ranked seventh followed by land shoratge (Table 7). Regarding the storage pests (bruchids) attack, farmers reported that although all cowpea groups were attacked, all local cultivars were the most susceptible. Farmers in all districts have indicated that all existing varieties of cowpea could be completely infested within one month of harvest. In the study areas, diseases and insect pests and drought are the most important biotic and abiotic constraints on cowpea. Majority of farmers (> 60%) have not applied any strategy to mitigate the effects of drought, aphids and poor soil fertility. 80% of farmers across districts have not used any strategy to deal with drought stress. However, mulching the soil, using ridges and adjusting planting dates are coping mechanisms that have been used by other farmers to alleviate the effects